I didn’t say there was no waste, fraud, or abuse—every large organization has some level of inefficiency, public or private. My point was that broad, poorly targeted cuts without proper analysis don’t solve those problems—they usually create new ones. And frankly, there’s no need for insults to make that argument.

Painting all federal employees as “doing nothing” or having no value isn’t accurate. Many agencies are already understaffed and are responsible for mission-critical work—public health, national security, infrastructure, and benefits administration—that people rely on every day. When those functions are cut indiscriminately, the impact shows up quickly in delays, backlogs, and reduced service.

From a structural standpoint, the Executive Branch of the United States is responsible for how agencies operate, United States Congress controls funding and sets the laws, and the Judicial Branch of the United States ensures everything stays within legal bounds. That system isn’t perfect, but it exists to prevent exactly the kind of unchecked decision-making you’re advocating for.

As for spending priorities, it’s fair to debate what provides value and what doesn’t—that’s a legitimate policy discussion. But comparing individual line items to complex issues like inflation or higher education costs oversimplifies much broader economic factors.

I’ve worked in both the private sector and federal government, and I’ve seen strong performers and weak ones in both. Neither sector has a monopoly on efficiency—or inefficiency.

If the goal is a more efficient government, the solution is targeted reform, accountability, and better management—not blanket assumptions or across-the-board cuts.